Bombay High Court

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HINGOLIversusSANGITA WD/O RAMKISAN NAYAKWAL AND OTHERS

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The court held that the 46‑day delay was justified by administrative exigency and therefore should be condoned, and it granted an ad‑interim stay conditioned on deposit of the award amount.

Summary

The Divisional Controller of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 46‑day delay in filing its first appeal against a judgment and award. The court examined the application and found the delay was due to administrative exigency, not deliberate. Consequently, the court held that sufficient cause existed to condone the delay in the interest of justice. The application was allowed, the delay was condoned, and the matter was disposed. An accompanying application for a stay of execution of the impugned judgment was also entertained, granting an ad‑interim stay conditioned upon the appellant depositing the award amount within twelve weeks.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 46 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under the principles of natural justice and procedural law
Whether an ad‑interim stay of execution of the impugned judgment should be granted pending deposit of the award amount

Subjects

condonation of delay
first appeal
civil procedure
stay of execution
administrative exigency
impugned judgment

Judgment

                                                  55 CA NO. 2493 OF 2026.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            55 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2493 OF 2026
                       IN FAST/6420/2026

     Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport
                      Corporation, Hingoli
                             VERSUS
          Sangita Wd/o Ramkisan Nayakwal And Others
                                ...
Mr. A. B. Dhongade, Advocate for Applicant

                             WITH
              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2494 OF 2026
                       IN FAST/6420/2026
                              ….

                     CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                       DATE : 04.03.2026
PER COURT :-

APPLICATION FOR DELAY

1.          Heard.


2.          This is an application for condonation of delay of 46

days caused in filing the first appeal.


3.          Perused the application.        For the reasons stated

therein, it appears that the delay is occasioned on account of

administrative exigency. Hence, sufficient cause is made out to

condone the delay. The application deserves to be allowed in the

interest of justice as the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional.


                                                                    1 of 3
                                    (( 2 ))       55 CA NO. 2493 OF 2026


Hence, the following order:

                               ::ORDER::

a.        Civil Application is allowed.

b.        The delay of 46 days caused in filing the first appeal is

          condoned.

c.        The application is disposed of.


FIRST APPEAL

.          Issue   notice     to   the    respondents,   returnable           on

24.06.2026.


APPLICATION FOR STAY

1.       This is an application seeking stay to the execution and

operation of the impugned judgment and award.


2.       Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 24.06.2026.


3.       Till then, there shall be ad-interim-stay to the execution and

operation of the impugned judgment and award on condition that

appellant shall deposit the entire amount under impugned judgment

and award with the Registry of this Court within twelve weeks from

today.



                                                                     2 of 3
                                    (( 3 ))     55 CA NO. 2493 OF 2026


4.         If the award amount is not deposited within the stipulated

period, ad-interim-stay granted by this Court shall be vacated without

further reference to this Court.




                                   [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                   3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…